words really were so written. But we think that proof is needed of this last point.

Besides this, in the present text of the Qur'an there have been pointed out certain grammatical constructions which, if found anywhere else, would be admitted to be wrong. These are not many. We content ourselves with mentioning three. ¹ (1) One is in Surah ii. 192: تِلْكَ عَشَرَةْ كَامِلَةْ‬. (2) The second is in Surah xiii. 28: الْقْلُوبُ الْذيِنَ‬. (3) The third is in Surah xx. 66: إنْ هَذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ.

Besides all this, it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style ² of the Qur'an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language. Some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu'allaqat, or the Maqamat of Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion. Yet history informs us that there have been among the Arabs men of learning who have ventured to deny the peerlessness of the Qur'an in point of eloquence. Thus Sultan Isma'il, in that part of his History in which he deals with Muslim affairs, tells us that Isa ibn Sabih, surnamed Abu Musa', and known as Al Muzdar, founder of the sect of the Muzdariyyah, used to say that men were quite competent to produce such a book as the Qur'an in poetry, elegance, and eloquence. He too asserted that the Qur'an had been created, about which point fierce disputes arose during the reign of the Khalifah Al Ma'mun (A. H. 198-218: A. D. 813-833). The author of the book entitled Sharhu'l Mawafiq informs us that Muzdar used to say that it was possible for the Arabs to compose a work at once more elegant, more eloquent and better than the Qur'an. Ash Shahristani tells us that Muzdar annulled the Qur'an's

claim to be peerless in respect of elegance and eloquence (البلاغة والْفصاحة). An Nizim (النّظام) says that the peerlessness (اعجاز) of the Qur'an lies in the information which it gives regarding the past and the future. If it is unrivalled, he says that the reason is because it refuses to permit the consideration of the claims of other books, and, forcibly or by discouraging them, prevents the Arabs from engaging diligently in such an attempt. He thinks that, if they were permitted to do so, the Arabs would surely be able to "bring a Surah like it" in eloquence, elegance, and poetry. Doubtless most Muslims regard these opinions as heretical, and it is by no means the desire of the author of these pages to maintain such views. He would merely point out that the peerlessness of the Qur'an, so constantly asserted by Muslims as clear and indisputable, has by no means remained undisputed by certain learned Arabs themselves. If then the style of the Qur'an has not seemed to these men miraculous, and to be a sufficient proof that Muhammad was Divinely commissioned, it is no marvel that the cogency of this asserted proof has not been clear to men of less learning and slighter knowledge of Arabic.

Even were it granted, however, that the style of the Qur'an is superior to that of any other Arabic book, that would not prove its inspiration or its descent upon Muhammad. In each cultivated language there are certain books which in that language are without a rival. In English, no dramatist equals Shakespeare; in German, Goethe and Schiller are unrivalled in their dramas; in Persian, Hafiz surpasses all other poets in one kind of poetry, Maulana yi Rumi in another. In Sanskrit, no one can now produce a poem equal to those in the Rig-Veda. Yet it would be absurd to suppose that these works are inspired merely because they are unequalled, each in its own style and in its own tongue. We must judge this by the teaching of the book, not by its style. This we have shown in the Introduction. Otherwise the Hindus would he justified